[MD] a-theism and atheism

[david buchanan]

Dan said to Mark:
Anti-theism requires more than a disbelief in God or gods (atheism). It requires first, a belief that theism is harmful to society and culture and second, that theism should be controverted in order to eliminate the harm it does. It seems clear (to me) that that is what Robert Pirsig is on about in the Copleston annotations, as well as Verne Dusenberry in his doctoral thesis The Montana Cree: A Study in Religious Persistence. So, it is possible for a religious person to be anti-theistic in the sense that they realize the harm done by the superimposition of one religion over another.


dmb says:

I agree with Dan.
There are several legitimate reasons to be concerned about the particular forms of theism in our present culture, especially the political culture. The Pope's recent "softening" of the Church's position on the use of condoms, for example. In the age of HIV, this translates into many deaths. There were several U.S. Senate candidates who held very extreme positions on abortions - based on their religious convictions. The efforts to teach creationism is a bit disturbing too. 

There is also the problem that Campbell put so neatly: "Religion is a misinterpretation of myth." Theism is a result of misreading the symbolic language of myth as concrete historical facts. It's a result of looking AT the window instead of looking THRU the window. There are some passages in Lila that say just that. Static patterns form and eventually block the light. That's theism.

But Pirsig's comment in the annotations is about the MOQ being "anti-theistic" in much more specific way. In that case, his complaint is about the way philosophy is being used to prop up theism. It's wrong to make philosophy into the servant of religion. Because religion is social quality and philosophy is intellectual quality, he sees such service as an evil act. This same basic moral relationship holds in general. According the MOQ, a society guided by intellectual quality is absolutely superior to one that is not so guided. 

This particular comment is relevant to our own conduct here, no? Wouldn't it be equally evil to make the MOQ the servant of theism? I think so.